The right to life and respect for human dignity remains an inalienable right of every person and a founding principle of this Organization. It is therefore the duty of States to promote and protect this right from conception until natural death. To that end, we must work consistently to reverse the culture of death embraced by some social and legal structures which justify certain forms of destruction of life as a legal necessity or a medical service.[1]

Human cloning

At the international level, the Holy See has underlined the ethical problems raised by some current forms of biomedical research.[2] The Holy See has been particularly active in the area of human cloning. In 2001, when Germany and France proposed at the United Nations General Assembly the adoption of an international convention to ban reproductive human cloning, the Holy See, together with a coalition of like-minded states that included Spain, Philippines, the United States, and Costa Rica, noted that such a convention would implicitly legitimize the cloning of human beings for research purposes,[3] which is more serious from an ethical point of view than the reproductive one,[4] and proposed banning all forms of human cloning.[5] The Holy See objected to the "production of millions of human embryos with the intention of destroying them as part of the process of using them for scientific research," and to the instrumentalization and victimization of women, specially of the poorest women, in the process of harvesting the necessary human eggs.[6] These efforts lead to the successful adoption, in March 2005, of a United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning, which calls upon all member states of the UN "to prohibit all forms of human cloning inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life."

Death penalty

In 2007, the Holy See argued at the United Nations that the death penalty should be used exceptionally, only when its use is necessary to protect society against an aggressor, a situation which is "practically non-existent" today, since societies have other ways of proteting their citizens. In addition, it noted that capital punishment is frequently discriminatory, since it is impopsed most ofter on the poorest and on members of religious, ethnic and racial minorities; and that it is irreversible, since it excludes all possibilities of recourse and restoration in the event of a miscarriage of justice.[7] Consequently, the Holy See worked for the adoption of a UN moratorium on the death penalty.[8]

Traditional family

At the various international conferences, the Holy See argued that the traditional family, based on a stable and loving relationship between a man and a woman, is necessary for the responsible transmission and nurturing of new life. Consequently, society must recognize the traditional family’s contribution to society’s own good through appropriate cultural, fiscal and social policy.
At the 1994 Cairo Conference, the Holy See argued that global population policy should ultimately be guided by the Respect for life and for the dignity of the human person so as to “foster the family based on marriage and must sustain parents, fathers and mothers, in their mutual and responsible decisions with regard to the procreation and education of children.” [10] Conversely, the Holy See has opposed “any attempts to weaken the family or to propose a radical redefining of its structure, such as assigning the status of family to other life-style forms.”[11]

Sexual orientation

In particular, the Holy See has opposed the use of the terms “Sexual orientation” and “Gender identity” in international human rights instruments, since, due to the fact that there is no agreed definition of those terms in international law, their use could favor of a redefinition of the family.[12] In its view, the term gender, whenever used, should be understood as male and female as grounded on the biological sexual identity.[13] On these bases, in 2008, the Holy See opposed the adoption of a proposed declaration on sexual orientation and gender identity by the United Nations General Assembly. At the same time, the Holy See has condemned all forms of violence against homosexual persons and has called for the elimination of criminal penalties against them.[14]

Responsible sexual behavior

The Holy See condemned irresponsible sexual behavior, which, in its view, victimizes mostly women and children, and which is fostered by today’s “attitudes of sexual permissiveness, which focus above all on personal pleasure and gratification.” [15] It has further argued that traditional sexual mores are the best way to prevent Sexually transmitted diseases including AIDS. As Archbishop Javier Lozano Barragán, “health minister“ of the Holy See stated at a UN special session on AIDS:

Regarding the sexual transmission of the disease, the best and most effective prevention is training in the authentic values of life, love and sexuality. A proper appreciation of these values will inform today's men and women about how to attain full personal fulfillment through affective maturity and the proper use of sexuality, whereby couples remain faithful to each other and behave in a way that keeps them from becoming infected by HIV/AIDS. No one can deny that sexual license increases the danger of contracting the disease. It is in this context that the values of matrimonial fidelity and of chastity and abstinence can be better understood.[16]

In the same vein, during his 2009 trip to Africa, Pope Benedict XVI argued that the spread of AIDS “cannot be overcome by the distribution of prophylactics: on the contrary, they increase it. The solution must have two elements: firstly, bringing out the human dimension of sexuality, that is to say a spiritual and human renewal that would bring with it a new way of behaving towards others, and secondly, true friendship offered above all to those who are suffering, a willingness to make sacrifices and to practise self-denial, to be alongside the suffering."[17]

Family planning

The Holy See underlined that responsible parenthood entails responsibility and demands discipline and self-restrain, [18] particularly in the area of sexual behavior. The Holy See opposed efforts to endorse Family planning methods which separate what, in its view, are the two essential dimensions of human sexuality: the transmission of life and the loving care of parents. At the Cairo Conference, the Holy See opposed the term family planning services which encompass sterilization, since it was often abused, especially when promoted among the poor or the illiterate.[19] At the conclusion of the 1995 Beijing Conference on Women, the Holy See reiterated that use of the term widest range of family planning services should not be interpreted as endorsing family planning methods or services that it considers morally unacceptable, that do not respect the liberty of spouses, human dignity or the human rights of those concerned.In particular, it could not be understood as endorsing contraception or the use of Condoms, either as a family planning measure or in HIV/AIDS prevention.[20]
In addition, the Holy See argued the education of children and adolescents, including in the area of sexual behavior, is primordially the responsibility of their parents, and not of the State; and it urged the international community to guarantee the parents the full exercise of this rights and to assist them to carry out their responsibilities.[21]

I cannot but deplore once again the continual attacks perpetrated on every continent against human life. I would like to recall, together with many men and women dedicated to research and science, that the new frontiers reached in bioethics do not require us to choose between science and morality: rather, they oblige us to a moral use of science.

The difference between "reproductive" cloning and "research" cloning (so-called "therapeutic" cloning) consists only in the objective of the procedure: in "reproductive" cloning one intends to develop a child by implanting the cloned embryo in a womb. In "research" cloning, one intends to use the cloned embryo in such a way that it is ultimately destroyed. To ban "reproductive" cloning only, without prohibiting "research" cloning, would be to allow the production of individual human lives with the intention of destroying these lives as part of the process of using them for scientific research. The early human embryo, not yet implanted into a womb, is nonetheless a human individual, with a human life, and evolving as an autonomous organism toward its full development into a human fetus Destroying this embryo is therefore a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate suppression of a innocent human being.

From the ethical point of view, so-called therapeutic cloning is even more serious. To create embryos with the intention of destroying them, even with the intention of helping the sick, is completely incompatible with human dignity, because it makes the existence of a human being at the embryonic stage nothing more than a means to be used and destroyed. It is gravely immoral to sacrifice a human life for therapeutic ends." (italics in the original)

I rejoice that on 18 December last the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution calling upon States to institute a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, and I earnestly hope that this initiative will lead to public debate on the sacred character of human life.

Our goal is to ensure that governments worldwide guarantee women's reproductive rights out of an understanding that they are bound to do so. The two principal prerequisites for achieving this goal are: (1) the strengthening of international legal norms protecting reproductive rights; and (2) consistent and effective action on the part of civil society and the international community to enforce these norms. Each of these conditions, in turn, depends upon profound social change at the local, national and international (including regional) levels. (...) Ultimately, we must persuade governments to accept reproductive rights as binding norms. Again, our approach can move forward on several fronts, with interventions both at the national and international levels. Governments' recognition of reproductive rights norms may be indicated by their support for progressive language in international conference documents or by their adoption and implementation of appropriate national-level legislative and policy instruments. In order to counter opposition to an expansion of recognized reproductive rights norms, we have questioned the credibility of such reactionary yet influential international actors as the United States and the Holy See. Our activities to garner support for international protections of reproductive rights include: Lobbying government delegations at UN conferences and producing supporting analyses/materials;

there are mounting threats to the natural composition of the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman, and attempts to relativize it by giving it the same status as other radically different forms of union. All this offends and helps to destabilize the family by concealing its specific nature and its unique social role.